The debate rages on

I first saw Barbara Kay’s article while I was on vacation. I dutifully hid my head in the sand (not literal) and didn’t even read it. (In favour of ice cream on the beach, sorry.) Can’t do that anymore because it’s back to the cold grindstone in Ottawa.

Where do I stand in a nutshell: Though Gray’s positioning is drastically different from my own, I fully support her. I do not agree with Kay–Gray’s techniques are far from a waste of time. She is not saying abortion is exactly like the Holocaust. Nor is she saying that women are like Hitler (thank you, St. Mary’s students, for this vapid interpretation). She is saying that where we fail to see people as people, atrocities happen.

Nor do I think Gray’s way is the only effective way of combatting abortion.

The other story to hit my inbox while I was away was that of a botched abortion–a woman, outraged at the treatment she received when her baby was actually delivered alive–by accident–in an abortion clinic–subsequently put in a plastic bag and thrown out.

The surprising thing here is not that the baby survived and was subsequently thrown out in a plastic bag–the surprising thing is that this happens every day as a routine course of action. That we as women enjoy the “right and privilege” of going to specially sanctioned centres to kill our children. That this is killing is very, very true (Gray’s main point)–that it is not necessary, not a “right” and that it hurts women is also very, very true (my main points).

So, at risk of sitting on the fence here, I don’t see much of a battle in the pro-life world on this one. Pro-lifers–forge on (in the manner you are comfortable, which will be different for everyone). I remain 100 per cent convinced that we shall win this (and I don’t think that about any other social/cultural battle I am also engaged in). Killing babies is at the heart of abortion. And that is ultimately what is unpopular, with the women who have them, and with just about anyone and everyone out there.

__________________________

Rebecca adds: I agree that explicitly suggesting abortion is akin to the Holocaust is potentially offensive, and thus counter-productive (the point is not to get diverted into a discussion of whether the Holocaust was unique and so on), but I also agree that they are both the results of cultures in which the sanctity of human life is diminished. I’m also not sure it’s a genocide in any meaningful way; “genocide” implies a concerted effort to eliminate a specific people, and the babies aborted in Canada come from all different races, religious groups, both sexes, and range from perfectly healthy to profoundly disabled.

The one thing they all have in common is that they’re inconvenient, either for their mothers, or for their fathers or grandparents, who pressure their mothers into aborting. And I truly think we need to emphasize this: the vast majority of aborted babies are terminated because they are inconvenient. Not to save the health of the mother, not because they were conceived in rape, not because they are suffering from conditions that will result in their death anyway. The great majority of babies aborted would be joyfully borne by other women, or by the very same woman a year or two down the road, or in a different relationship.

Related Posts

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page.Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Yes, it is about killing babies.
What is very important is what terminology we use to describe it, or to compare it to other atrocities, present or part of history.
In numbers I am not against calling it a genocide. But there was only one Holocaust and the term pertains to a particular tragic part of history, that should never happen again. Hence the term is being misrepresented by using it in connection with abortions.

I think Hanam might be right. This is what Barbara Kay conveyed to me, the use of Holocaust is offensive to most Jews, for whom the Holocaust is so much a part of their identity.
Genocide I have no problem with. Julie

I disagree that we should altogether avoid referencing the Holocaust when discussing abortion. I have no desire to cater to another’s sensibilities when it comes to the absolute evil that is abortion – one of abortion’s most appealing qualitities is that one does not have to confront the reality of it. Most people (well, all who are sane and remotely informed) recognize the Holocaust as intrinsically evil and cringe at the thought of history repeating itself. Pointing out the similarities between the Holocaust and abortion can be a powerful argument. I don’t think it should be shelved because it’s unpleasant – isn’t that the point?

Perhaps I seem cold, but I suppose I’m a little tired of worrying about what terminology to use and what analogies are appropriate while children are being senselessly massacred.

You could say its the genocide of the ‘inconvenient’ people, which increasingly in Canada and elsewhere includes anyone who is elderly, ill and/or incapacitated in any way.

Those at risk are those who depend on others for help. Canadians no longer consider this a priority. They ‘talk the talk’ and vote for those who say they care, but they allow things to happen that are the antithesis of caring. The root of the problem is that Canadians do not believe in the INHERENT value of EVERY human life.

This was also the problem with Hitler, who, aside from the Jews, eliminated many, many others he considered unworthy of life (for various reasons).

If we don’t solve the problem of this lack of belief in human value, we will increasingly have much much more to worry about than abortion.

I’ve been around UofT to see 2 or 3 years of GAP. Regarding the genocide question, when I asked Jose Ruba this question, he talked about the systematic killing of the disabled. I have a family member who was urged by her doctors to consider abortion because of the chance that her child would have Down Syndrome.

There’s a huge bias in the system against the disabled, that’s for sure. Whether it’s systematic in the same sense as the Holocaust (e.g. intentional) is not so clear.

I think the parallels are actually really strong, though no one is asserting equivalence. But, it gets really distracting. You spend a lot of your time defending and explaining the analogy before you can even really get to talk about the issue at hand.

I would participate in GAP again if it was being run near me, but I wouldn’t actively seek it out or organize it myself. The distractions are… inefficient, at best.

I disagree with the first commenter, Hanam. He says there “there was there was only one Holocaust.” Maybe there was only one holocaust with a capital H–the Holocaust–but there can be many holocausts. According to Fowler’s 1964 Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (my personal dictionary, which is not current anymore but still valid and written after the Second World War), a holocaust is a “whole burnt-offering; wholesale sacrifice (fig.) or destruction.” So abortion definitely is a holocaust.

Hanam says that “the term [Holocaust] pertains to a particular tragic part of history, that should never happen again.” I agree, but unfortunately a holocaust is happening again. The term “holocaust” (with a small h) is NOT being misrepresented by using it in connection with abortions.

The term GENOCIDE is perhaps wrongly used in connection with abortions. However, if we look at current English–which is becoming very sloppy, in my opinion–the term is being loosely applied, and not just by pro-lifers. I used the Google search engine with the keywords “genocide” and “better term”, and here is what one of the first entries said (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.ENCY.HTM):

“Genocide is also a subject of social science and scholarly study, but its legal definition does not easily allow for empirical and historical research. For this reason the definition of genocide for research purposes has, in essence, been of two types. One is the definition of genocide as the intention to murder people because of their group membership, even if political or economic. A second definition, which may also be called democide, is any intentional government murder of unarmed and helpless people for whatever reason. ”

As there are significant similarities between abortion and Hitler’s genocide of the Jews, the G.A.P. seems to be aptly named.

I’m glad to see so many people talking about the comparisons…and really that’s the point of our presentations.

If you actually hear our talk, you’ll know that we’re not saying the Holocaust and abortion are exactly the same (hence the title “Echoes of the Holocaust”) but that there are enough similarities to warrant a comparison.

In fact, I mention in my presentations that the first eyewitnesses to the Bosnian Genocide and the Cambodian Genocide all alluded to the Holocaust to help them understand what happened in those countries. The term “Echo of the Holocaust” was in fact first used by reporters who discovered the concentration camps in Bosnia.

The point is, even in our relativistic culture that denies absolutes, most people still understand the Holocaust was morally wrong. This is why they get mad. And this is why they get talking. And the more we talk about what abortion is or isn’t, the more I believe our side gets our message across.

The outrage against the comparison is not just about how we are diminishing the Holocaust – we’re not of course – but I think also stems from the fear that the comparisons may be accurate.

I can see your point, Jojo, and I am on your side. My point is that lots of people get distracted when they hear “Holocaust” and their thinking goes in a different direction than abortion. The main focus of the debate deteriorates into a discussion and/or shouting match,
as to what represents what. We have a long way to go in expecting people to put these two comparisons together. We are dealing here with deep emotions on both sides and that requires a lot of diplomacy. I do admire your courage in all you do. All the best.

Some time ago, I really needed to buy a house for my business but I did not earn enough money and couldn’t purchase anything. Thank God my dude proposed to take the loans at banks. So, I did that and used to be satisfied with my car loan.